Supreme Court ruling
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 705
Likes: 42
Supreme Court ruling
WASHINGTON - In an important test of legal standards for death penalty cases, the Supreme Court overturned the sentence of a Maryland inmate, saying his lawyers had not adequately investigated his history as a victim of childhood abuse.
The court declared in a 7-2 ruling that the performance of Kevin Wiggins' lawyers violated the convicted murderer's Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of legal counsel.
The decision, written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, underscored long-standing concerns she and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg have expressed about the quality of legal help available to many people accused of murder. In a decision praised by death penalty opponents, the court ordered a new sentencing hearing.
Because of the court's action, more death row inmates will be able to push forward with claims that their representation did not meet constitutional standards, said Steven Hawkins, executive director of the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty.
In North Carolina, death penalty opponents who have been lobbying the General Assembly for a moratorium on executions said they were pleased with the ruling. One cited the case of Ronald Frye, a Catawba County man executed in 2001 even though his lawyer admitted drinking 12 shots nightly of 80-proof rum during the trial.
"The Supreme Court did the right thing," said Gretchen Engel, a lawyer with the N.C. Center for Death Penalty Litigation in Durham. "A moratorium on executions will prevent more wrongful executions in cases in which important evidence was not presented to the jury. Unfortunately, it's too late for Ronnie Frye."
Jurors at Frye's trial never heard that Frye's mother gave him away at age 4 to a couple at a gas station and that his foster father beat him with a bullwhip. Two jurors have said they wouldn't have voted for the death penalty if they had known about the abuse.
In the case before the Supreme Court, two Baltimore County, Md., public defenders represented Wiggins, convicted by a judge of first-degree murder and robbery in the drowning of a 77-year-old woman who employed him as a handyman. A jury sentenced him to death.
With new lawyers, Wiggins challenged the adequacy of his legal representation at sentencing for failing to investigate his background. According to evidence presented by his new lawyers, Wiggins' alcoholic mother frequently left him and his siblings home alone for days, forcing them to beg for food and eat garbage.
One of his foster parents sexually abused him two or three times a week when he was 8, according to the social worker's report.
"Given the nature and extent of the abuse, there is a reasonable probability that a competent attorney, aware of this history, would have introduced it at sentencing and that a jury confronted with such mitigating evidence would have returned with a different sentence," the court said.
LET'S SUMMARIZE:
The Supreme Court has decided that an adult individual may have the right to commit murder if years ago that adult was mistreated as a child. Please let me know if I've got this right. In my 50+ years I've compiled a long list of people that no longer should be allowed to draw air, and I can link that to the strap my Father used on me as a child. Hurry with your opinions, I can hardly wait!
The court declared in a 7-2 ruling that the performance of Kevin Wiggins' lawyers violated the convicted murderer's Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of legal counsel.
The decision, written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, underscored long-standing concerns she and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg have expressed about the quality of legal help available to many people accused of murder. In a decision praised by death penalty opponents, the court ordered a new sentencing hearing.
Because of the court's action, more death row inmates will be able to push forward with claims that their representation did not meet constitutional standards, said Steven Hawkins, executive director of the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty.
In North Carolina, death penalty opponents who have been lobbying the General Assembly for a moratorium on executions said they were pleased with the ruling. One cited the case of Ronald Frye, a Catawba County man executed in 2001 even though his lawyer admitted drinking 12 shots nightly of 80-proof rum during the trial.
"The Supreme Court did the right thing," said Gretchen Engel, a lawyer with the N.C. Center for Death Penalty Litigation in Durham. "A moratorium on executions will prevent more wrongful executions in cases in which important evidence was not presented to the jury. Unfortunately, it's too late for Ronnie Frye."
Jurors at Frye's trial never heard that Frye's mother gave him away at age 4 to a couple at a gas station and that his foster father beat him with a bullwhip. Two jurors have said they wouldn't have voted for the death penalty if they had known about the abuse.
In the case before the Supreme Court, two Baltimore County, Md., public defenders represented Wiggins, convicted by a judge of first-degree murder and robbery in the drowning of a 77-year-old woman who employed him as a handyman. A jury sentenced him to death.
With new lawyers, Wiggins challenged the adequacy of his legal representation at sentencing for failing to investigate his background. According to evidence presented by his new lawyers, Wiggins' alcoholic mother frequently left him and his siblings home alone for days, forcing them to beg for food and eat garbage.
One of his foster parents sexually abused him two or three times a week when he was 8, according to the social worker's report.
"Given the nature and extent of the abuse, there is a reasonable probability that a competent attorney, aware of this history, would have introduced it at sentencing and that a jury confronted with such mitigating evidence would have returned with a different sentence," the court said.
LET'S SUMMARIZE:
The Supreme Court has decided that an adult individual may have the right to commit murder if years ago that adult was mistreated as a child. Please let me know if I've got this right. In my 50+ years I've compiled a long list of people that no longer should be allowed to draw air, and I can link that to the strap my Father used on me as a child. Hurry with your opinions, I can hardly wait!
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
From: northeast usa
this seems too unbelievable to be true.
i dont care is someone was raped by elephants when they were little. if you cant function in society without killing others, there is no place for you in society, anywhere. end of story.
his rights were violated by his lawyer? the convicts actions should have been judged by witnesses & investigation results of the event itself, and nothing else.
what was done 3, 30, or 300 years before is a moot issue.
i dont care is someone was raped by elephants when they were little. if you cant function in society without killing others, there is no place for you in society, anywhere. end of story.
his rights were violated by his lawyer? the convicts actions should have been judged by witnesses & investigation results of the event itself, and nothing else.
what was done 3, 30, or 300 years before is a moot issue.
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 705
Likes: 42
Originally posted by billycouldride
this seems too unbelievable to be true.
i dont care is someone was raped by elephants when they were little. if you cant function in society without killing others, there is no place for you in society, anywhere. end of story.
his rights were violated by his lawyer? the convicts actions should have been judged by witnesses & investigation results of the event itself, and nothing else.
what was done 3, 30, or 300 years before is a moot issue.
this seems too unbelievable to be true.
i dont care is someone was raped by elephants when they were little. if you cant function in society without killing others, there is no place for you in society, anywhere. end of story.
his rights were violated by his lawyer? the convicts actions should have been judged by witnesses & investigation results of the event itself, and nothing else.
what was done 3, 30, or 300 years before is a moot issue.
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 1,704
Likes: 0
From: Mpls, MN
Re: Supreme Court ruling
Originally posted by serotta
LET'S SUMMARIZE:
The Supreme Court has decided that an adult individual may have the right to commit murder if years ago that adult was mistreated as a child. Please let me know if I've got this right. In my 50+ years I've compiled a long list of people that no longer should be allowed to draw air, and I can link that to the strap my Father used on me as a child. Hurry with your opinions, I can hardly wait!
LET'S SUMMARIZE:
The Supreme Court has decided that an adult individual may have the right to commit murder if years ago that adult was mistreated as a child. Please let me know if I've got this right. In my 50+ years I've compiled a long list of people that no longer should be allowed to draw air, and I can link that to the strap my Father used on me as a child. Hurry with your opinions, I can hardly wait!
The Justices were expressing their opinions that we are all entitled to adequate legal representation. Nothing more, unless you read into it with your own personal point of view.
I think the Justices were also saying that, in this case, the jurors had a right to know about the defendant's past so it could be taken into account during sentencing. I think from the jurors point of view, they felt he had been through enough, as a victim or circumstance, and a just sentence would have been life in prison, rather than death.
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 705
Likes: 42
Re: Re: Supreme Court ruling
Originally posted by AjRagno
Not at all
The Justices were expressing their opinions that we are all entitled to adequate legal representation. Nothing more, unless you read into it with your own personal point of view.
I think the Justices were also saying that, in this case, the jurors had a right to know about the defendant's past so it could be taken into account during sentencing. I think from the jurors point of view, they felt he had been through enough, as a victim or circumstance, and a just sentence would have been life in prison, rather than death.
Not at all
The Justices were expressing their opinions that we are all entitled to adequate legal representation. Nothing more, unless you read into it with your own personal point of view.
I think the Justices were also saying that, in this case, the jurors had a right to know about the defendant's past so it could be taken into account during sentencing. I think from the jurors point of view, they felt he had been through enough, as a victim or circumstance, and a just sentence would have been life in prison, rather than death.
..... and the debate continues and will forever.
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,867
Likes: 0
From: NH
The law is the law and should be applied EQUALLY to all. This means if little Joey grew up in a great family and breaks the law he should face the same penalties as little Johnny that grew up being beat all the time by his father.
It never ceases to amaze me at how some people cannot make sense. You have some folks, like liberals, screaming like little girls about how everything should be fair and equal for everyone, yet in another breath they want to look at everything on a one on one case basis.
It does not matter what this particular morons life was like because he is now an adult and KNOWS what is right and what is wrong. He should be judged NO different then me or anyone else. His past is USLESS as a defense to his actions. It is an EXCUSE only and has NOTHING to do with WHY he carried out his actions.
Thank you al mighty Supreme Court for broadcasting LOAD and CLEAR to all the losers running around that they now have an EXCUSE to commit a crime and either get a way with it, or get less punishment then another for the same act.
Where the hell are the ACLU, Jesse Jackson, and the other stupid and useless liberal organizations on this prejudice treatment of people? You won’t see them groups because they have NO values, NO principles, and NO courage to stand up and PROTECT the innocent people, the innocent women, and the innocent children…
It never ceases to amaze me at how some people cannot make sense. You have some folks, like liberals, screaming like little girls about how everything should be fair and equal for everyone, yet in another breath they want to look at everything on a one on one case basis.
It does not matter what this particular morons life was like because he is now an adult and KNOWS what is right and what is wrong. He should be judged NO different then me or anyone else. His past is USLESS as a defense to his actions. It is an EXCUSE only and has NOTHING to do with WHY he carried out his actions.
Thank you al mighty Supreme Court for broadcasting LOAD and CLEAR to all the losers running around that they now have an EXCUSE to commit a crime and either get a way with it, or get less punishment then another for the same act.
Where the hell are the ACLU, Jesse Jackson, and the other stupid and useless liberal organizations on this prejudice treatment of people? You won’t see them groups because they have NO values, NO principles, and NO courage to stand up and PROTECT the innocent people, the innocent women, and the innocent children…
Senior Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
From: Fort Worth Texas
Well I am in a cost cutting mood today. So while I recognise the fact it takes over 40,000 grand a year to house and feed these azzholes, I say we just complete the sentences handed out and start the executions. And any newly convicted can abide by the new rulings. This decision should not be applied to those that are already sentenced....there is a word I am searching for and I have brain farted.......
With my past I could certainly get away with murder with this new ruling so don't **** me off
With my past I could certainly get away with murder with this new ruling so don't **** me off
Trending Topics
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 1,704
Likes: 0
From: Mpls, MN
Ronald Frye's Prison Record
In case anyone missed it, Ronald Frye was executed on August 31, 2001.
What amuses me so much about conservatives, is their inability to reason. It's all about what you want and how only your personal experience matters. "ME, ME, ME, ME, ME!!!"
If you apply just a bit of reason and common sense, you can see by, Ronald Frye's prison record, that the state of North Carolina had plenty of time to see that this man was a career criminal and societal deviant. He had no business being out in the world with the rest of us. He was out there with the rest of us because of the conservative belief that prison is for punishment, not for rehabilitation. He was punished, served his time and was then set free on society.
He was born and bred to grow up and kill, no question.
01 XLT Sport,
How well adjusted do you suppose you'd be right now if, like Frye or Wiggins, you were borderline retarded, abused from the moment you were born and molested by someone charged with caring for you?
That's the problem with conservatism: You think tough **** for him... His life, not mine. We won't spend tax payer money to ensure that these children are cared for and treated, so they can grow up to be productive members of our society. No, we'll ignore it. Reaction, rather than action is the best policy in life
Every day children are abused and bred to be just like, Ronald Frye and it is the direct result of views like yours; Of how everybody's on their own.
He knew what he was doing was wrong. He didn't care that it was wrong though because he was taught to be a predator to survive. That is what happens when a person is abused their whole life. Same thing happens to any animal. Just look at dogs that are bred for fighting. If you had been raised as he was, you'd have had the same view of the world.
He did deserve to die for what he did. The point still stands though: That we are all entitled to adequate legal representation.
I suppose even though O.J. killed 2 people, it's alright that he didn't go to prison because he could afford a multi million dollar defense. Because that's the way our system works right? That's the way American Justice was designed?
The American Justice System is, right now, all about money, privelege and skin color, not right and wrong or fair and just.
Wiggins has always maintained he is innocent. He was caught driving the victim's car a few days after the killing, and had some of the victim's credit cards. No physical evidence tied him to the crime.
If he had money, he would have been aquitted. That is what's wrong with our legal system, and more importantly, what is wrong with the death penalty. It is all too often applied only if the defendant is poor.
In case anyone missed it, Ronald Frye was executed on August 31, 2001.
What amuses me so much about conservatives, is their inability to reason. It's all about what you want and how only your personal experience matters. "ME, ME, ME, ME, ME!!!"
If you apply just a bit of reason and common sense, you can see by, Ronald Frye's prison record, that the state of North Carolina had plenty of time to see that this man was a career criminal and societal deviant. He had no business being out in the world with the rest of us. He was out there with the rest of us because of the conservative belief that prison is for punishment, not for rehabilitation. He was punished, served his time and was then set free on society.
He was born and bred to grow up and kill, no question.
01 XLT Sport,
How well adjusted do you suppose you'd be right now if, like Frye or Wiggins, you were borderline retarded, abused from the moment you were born and molested by someone charged with caring for you?
That's the problem with conservatism: You think tough **** for him... His life, not mine. We won't spend tax payer money to ensure that these children are cared for and treated, so they can grow up to be productive members of our society. No, we'll ignore it. Reaction, rather than action is the best policy in life
Every day children are abused and bred to be just like, Ronald Frye and it is the direct result of views like yours; Of how everybody's on their own.
He knew what he was doing was wrong. He didn't care that it was wrong though because he was taught to be a predator to survive. That is what happens when a person is abused their whole life. Same thing happens to any animal. Just look at dogs that are bred for fighting. If you had been raised as he was, you'd have had the same view of the world.
He did deserve to die for what he did. The point still stands though: That we are all entitled to adequate legal representation.
I suppose even though O.J. killed 2 people, it's alright that he didn't go to prison because he could afford a multi million dollar defense. Because that's the way our system works right? That's the way American Justice was designed?
The American Justice System is, right now, all about money, privelege and skin color, not right and wrong or fair and just.
Wiggins has always maintained he is innocent. He was caught driving the victim's car a few days after the killing, and had some of the victim's credit cards. No physical evidence tied him to the crime.
Last edited by AjRagno; Jun 27, 2003 at 10:25 AM.
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,867
Likes: 0
From: NH
Originally posted by AjRagno
What amuses me so much about conservatives, is their inability to reason. It's all about what you want and how only your personal experience matters. "ME, ME, ME, ME, ME!!!"
What amuses me so much about conservatives, is their inability to reason. It's all about what you want and how only your personal experience matters. "ME, ME, ME, ME, ME!!!"
Where your mistaking, maybe based on your liberal beliefs is that conservative do not have the ability to reason. That is what a conservative is, someone that applies logic and reason to a situation and not “feelings” as do liberals. You really have this backwards, but then again so do all liberals and socialist.
Originally posted by AjRagno
If you apply just a bit of reason and common sense, you can see by, Ronald Frye's prison record, that the state of North Carolina had plenty of time to see that this man was a career criminal and societal deviant. He had no business being out in the world with the rest of us. He was out there with the rest of us because of the conservative belief that prison is for punishment, not for rehabilitation. He was punished, served his time and was then set free on society.
If you apply just a bit of reason and common sense, you can see by, Ronald Frye's prison record, that the state of North Carolina had plenty of time to see that this man was a career criminal and societal deviant. He had no business being out in the world with the rest of us. He was out there with the rest of us because of the conservative belief that prison is for punishment, not for rehabilitation. He was punished, served his time and was then set free on society.
If it were left to conservatives to decide Ronald Frye’s fate and based on his past record he would have been left in prison to DIE of old age.
Originally posted by AjRagno
How well adjusted do you suppose you'd be right now if, like Frye, you were borderline retarded, abused from the moment you were born and molested by someone charged with caring for you?
How well adjusted do you suppose you'd be right now if, like Frye, you were borderline retarded, abused from the moment you were born and molested by someone charged with caring for you?
It’s the socialist liberals that can make that happen…
Originally posted by AjRagno
That's the problem with conservatism: You think tough **** for him... His life, not mine. We won't spend tax payer money to ensure that these children are cared for and treated, so they can grow up to be productive members of our society. No, we'll ignore it. Reaction, rather than action is the best policy in life.
That's the problem with conservatism: You think tough **** for him... His life, not mine. We won't spend tax payer money to ensure that these children are cared for and treated, so they can grow up to be productive members of our society. No, we'll ignore it. Reaction, rather than action is the best policy in life.
There is only so much money. I am NOT giving anymore of my money, so you and others like you need to make a decision. Do you help those that REALLY need it, or do you continue to feed for free the lazy, and to protect the ones causing all the harm to innocent women and children. These people are let out every single GD day because of the STUPID moron liberal beliefs that “We must help them, they are a product of society, they are not responsible for their actions” YES they sure in the hell are and they are hurting INNOCENT women and children EVERY day.
Originally posted by AjRagno
Every day children are abused and bred to be just like, Ronald Frye and it is the direct result of views like yours; Of how everybody's on their own.
Every day children are abused and bred to be just like, Ronald Frye and it is the direct result of views like yours; Of how everybody's on their own.
Yes, there are conservatism beliefs in that all should be able to make it on their own. Nothing wrong with that. However, there are also beliefs, strong beliefs that we should help the “truly” needy, be it young or old.
Maybe this helps a bit to understand conservatism:
Liberal – Give a homeless man a fish (feeds him for a day)
Conservative – Teach a homeless man to fish (feeds himself for a lifetime)
Originally posted by AjRagno
I suppose even though O.J. killed 2 people, it's alright that he didn't go to prison because he could afford a multi million dollar defense. Because that's the way our system works right? That's the way American Justice was designed?
I suppose even though O.J. killed 2 people, it's alright that he didn't go to prison because he could afford a multi million dollar defense. Because that's the way our system works right? That's the way American Justice was designed?
Originally posted by AjRagno
The American Justice System is, right now, all about money, privelege and skin color, not right and wrong or fair and just.
If he had money, he would have been aquitted. That is what's wrong with our legal system, and more importantly, what is wrong with the death penalty. It is all too often applied only if the defendant is poor.
The American Justice System is, right now, all about money, privelege and skin color, not right and wrong or fair and just.
If he had money, he would have been aquitted. That is what's wrong with our legal system, and more importantly, what is wrong with the death penalty. It is all too often applied only if the defendant is poor.
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,867
Likes: 0
From: NH
Originally posted by AjRagno
Boy..... It's like pouring water on concrete... You didn't absorb or even try to consider anything I wrote
You just go right back to the old Rush Limbaugh encyclopedia.
Boy..... It's like pouring water on concrete... You didn't absorb or even try to consider anything I wrote
You just go right back to the old Rush Limbaugh encyclopedia.
What is with this Rush Limbaugh encyclopedia? I have heard of Rush and have listen to his show on occasion, which I must add is quit good. However, I may listen to him 3 times a year if that for I do not have a radio at work to listen and I work when his show is on during the day.
What I say is from me, it is not something I have heard or read. It is my belief and that is why I can speak about my beliefs time and time again and always keep them straight because they come from me. It is hard for some to be able to do that because they always have to remember what they heard or read and hope to get it right each time they write something because guys like me will pick up on contradictions and put them to bed easily because I do not rely on someone, or something dictating to me “how” or “why” I should feel a certain way.
The other reason it is easy for me to remain consistent is I believe in basic and logical beliefs such as personal responsibility. That one is so simple but yet scares so many. It answers many upon many of today’s problems yet it is so confusing for so many to grasp because it means “judging” and that is such an awful thing to do in this present time we live in.
It is a very tough thing to live by, as is basically anything that is correct, it is harder to do then the easy thing. To do your best at assuming personal responsibility means “thinking” about most things before you do them.
To think:
Is what I am doing the right thing?
For many it is very tough to do, to “think” for themselves, for various reasons. Most likely they were brought up believing there is no reason to think for yourself because government will take care of you, and/or if you screw up you can always blame it on someone and/or something else, so why think when that is hard to do, and just do the easy thing and let others worry about it for you…
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
From: N. Florida
Everyone is going to have their differences opinions. I don't really think that there is a right or wrong opinion as long as those opinions are from that persons heart and doesn't form their opinions based on somebody elses opinion. If everyone had the same opinion as everyone else, we would have boring lives because everyone would think the same.
I am the type of person that will look at both sides before I make a decision on something important. I would classify myself as right down the middle. Conservatives have good opinions and liberals have good opinions. I try to keep myself in the middle, even though based on the situation, it may be necessary to lean one way or the other a little bit.
Remember, conservatism and liberalism are based on opinions. Some people feel strongly about one thing while another person may not. Unless you have FACTS about something, then everything you know about a subject will be opinions. And everyone is entitled to their opinions. While we may not agree 100% on a subject, everyone should at least respect the others opinion and what they believe.
DISCLAIMER: These thoughts and opinions are by me and me alone. They are not based on any one view and in no way meant to offend anyone.
I am the type of person that will look at both sides before I make a decision on something important. I would classify myself as right down the middle. Conservatives have good opinions and liberals have good opinions. I try to keep myself in the middle, even though based on the situation, it may be necessary to lean one way or the other a little bit.
Remember, conservatism and liberalism are based on opinions. Some people feel strongly about one thing while another person may not. Unless you have FACTS about something, then everything you know about a subject will be opinions. And everyone is entitled to their opinions. While we may not agree 100% on a subject, everyone should at least respect the others opinion and what they believe.
DISCLAIMER: These thoughts and opinions are by me and me alone. They are not based on any one view and in no way meant to offend anyone.
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 705
Likes: 42
The over-riding theme of this topic is "think". We are all thinking and responding to our thoughts. Trying to articulate what we, as individuals, think is correct or at least something we can live with or by. Wiggins and Frye didn't think, they reacted to a situation without regard to the consequences. I spent 19 years teaching Middle and High schoolers before I moved to my last profession. I dealt with several Wiggins and Fryes in my time. It was evident that these kids got into trouble because they were at times reactionary. No thought to consequences. Look back through some of these threads, some of us, as intelligent as we are, still become reactionary when we see certain words strung together. Many of us have gone back to those threads to apologize or smooth over some of the "rough water" we have created. The problem as I see it is the pattern of behavior without thought to the consequences that these two, and other individuals have exhibited. Society has to deal with it, not bury their heads in the sand and hope it goes away.
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,867
Likes: 0
From: NH
Paulv107:
You bring up a very good point. That you look, or listen to both sides and then make a judgment. Now some may think conservatives like me do not do that, or that some liberals do not do that. However, I do listen, study, and research both sides of an issue before I even think about commenting on the subject.
With that said I should also note that just because I have made a particular judgment does not mean with further input, as like in debate, that I will not change my thought on a subject and thus my standing.
I never listen to just one side then another and then make a judgment. In my opinion, one has to look deeper into it rather then listen to one person from side A and another from side B.
Now here is one that may really surprise AjRagno and that is my stand on Ford and the 97 V6 motor gasket problem. The reason I believe this may surprise AjRagno is because he may think I am a straight conservative which most people thinks means a complete Republican right down the line and agree with everything they do.
This would be wrong but in line with what I have stated before about thinking for myself, listening and/or weighing both sides of an issue and then making a judgment. This one is not hard at all because it goes right back to my core belief of personal responsibility.
My take on Ford and the 97 V6 problems is that Ford should have to cover every one of them completely, 100% no ifs, ands or buts about it. In my opinion and from what I have learned, and a good deal from AjRagno, is that Ford knew this was a problem but failed their customers or just said “screw it” to personal responsibility.
If I had the ability, and any kind of power of which I don’t, I would be the first one standing by AjRagno’s side in court screaming my “personal responsibility” beliefs and how Ford should cover all of them. I am talking major issues with defects, not the few here and there that are always going to happen.
Would that cost Ford a lot of money? Yep, damn straight it would but that would help Ford learn a lesson in “personal responsibility”…
You bring up a very good point. That you look, or listen to both sides and then make a judgment. Now some may think conservatives like me do not do that, or that some liberals do not do that. However, I do listen, study, and research both sides of an issue before I even think about commenting on the subject.
With that said I should also note that just because I have made a particular judgment does not mean with further input, as like in debate, that I will not change my thought on a subject and thus my standing.
I never listen to just one side then another and then make a judgment. In my opinion, one has to look deeper into it rather then listen to one person from side A and another from side B.
Now here is one that may really surprise AjRagno and that is my stand on Ford and the 97 V6 motor gasket problem. The reason I believe this may surprise AjRagno is because he may think I am a straight conservative which most people thinks means a complete Republican right down the line and agree with everything they do.
This would be wrong but in line with what I have stated before about thinking for myself, listening and/or weighing both sides of an issue and then making a judgment. This one is not hard at all because it goes right back to my core belief of personal responsibility.
My take on Ford and the 97 V6 problems is that Ford should have to cover every one of them completely, 100% no ifs, ands or buts about it. In my opinion and from what I have learned, and a good deal from AjRagno, is that Ford knew this was a problem but failed their customers or just said “screw it” to personal responsibility.
If I had the ability, and any kind of power of which I don’t, I would be the first one standing by AjRagno’s side in court screaming my “personal responsibility” beliefs and how Ford should cover all of them. I am talking major issues with defects, not the few here and there that are always going to happen.
Would that cost Ford a lot of money? Yep, damn straight it would but that would help Ford learn a lesson in “personal responsibility”…
